Each year in the United States about 720,000 people have heart attacks and about 124,000 people in the UK and 55,000 people in Australia will have them as well. Since the 1980s, survival rates from heart attacks have improved – a lot of people get them, but more and more people are surviving. A recent study of patients in Denmark showed that in 1984-1988 31.4% of patients died within a month of having a heart attack. From 2004-2008 this was down to 14.8%.

Once a patient has made it through a heart attack and begins to recover, they get advice from their doctors on what to do to stay healthy and get back to normal. That includes a lot of things – when to go back to work, when they can start traveling again and what to eat. But there is an important item that a lot of doctors don’t talk about: sex.

There are no universal guidelines for getting back to ‘normal’

Providing advice about lifestyle can be more challenging than prescribing standardized medications or smoking cessation because “normal” life differs widely among patients and requires individualized counseling.

For instance, scientific evidence from large-scale clinical trials isn’t always available to help the cardiologist decide the ideal time for when an individual patient should return to work. A software engineer might get different advice than a butcher or construction worker who has to lift heavy objects all day long. Physicians have to carefully estimate the patient’s capacity for physical activity as well as the physical demands of the job and be pragmatic about how long a patient can take time off from work.

Sex also requires this kind individualized counseling. New research shows that patients want to talk about sexual activity with their doctors, but that all too often that conversation never takes place.

Let’s talk about sex

A recent study conducted in 127 hospitals in the United States and Spain suggests that doctors are not very good at broaching the topic of sexual activity after a heart attack.

Researchers studied 2,349 women and 1,152 men who had suffered from a myocardial infarction (the medical term for a heart attack). This study focused on younger heart attack patients (ages 18-55) and asked them whether they had discussed sexual activity with their doctors. With younger patients talking about life after a heart attack is especially important. The loss of sexual activity or function is a major quality of life issue, and can affect intimate relationships, reproduction and lead to depression.

In the month following the heart attack, only 12% of women and 19% of men had some discussion with a doctor about sex. In the US, most patients reported that they initiated the discussion, whereas in Spain, most discussions were initiated by the doctor. This means that more than 85% of patients received no advice from their doctors regarding if and when they could resume sexual activity.

The study found that the vast majority of patients were sexually active in the year before their heart attacks, and they valued sexuality as an important part of life. They also felt it was appropriate for physicians to initiate the discussion about having sex again.

It is interesting that in the US, patients were more likely to bring up sex and men were given more restrictive advice, while in Spain, physicians were more likely to bring up the topic and more restrictive recommendations were given to women.

The study did not specifically study the motivations of the physicians but these differences suggest that cultural differences and gender affect the counseling in regards to sexual activity. Future research could potentially also study the physicians and help uncover how culture and gender influence the counseling process.

This lack of communication between doctors and patients was not due to the patients’ unease: 84% of women and 91% of men said that they would feel comfortable talking to their doctors about sex. What is even more concerning is that the 15% or so of patients who received counseling often got inaccurate recommendations.

Sex is exercise. But doctors don’t talk about it that way

Two-thirds of those who talked about sex with their doctors were told that they could resume sexual activity with restrictions like limiting sex, taking a “passive role” or keeping their heart rate down during sex. But here’s the thing: sex is exercise. And after a heart attack doctors routinely ask patients whether they can tolerate mild to moderate physical activity such as mowing the lawn or climbing up two flights of stairs without chest pain or other major symptoms.

The Scientific Statement of the American Heart Association (AHA) on sexual activity states that it is reasonable to resume sexual activity as early as one week after an uncomplicated heart attack. If there are complications after the heart attack such as feeling out of breath or experiencing persistent chest pain then these problems need to be addressed first. And in the AHA guidelines there is no mention of “passive roles” or keeping heart rates down during sex. These restrictions are also quite impractical. How are patients supposed to monitor their heart rates and keep them down during sex?

The kind of restrictions recommended by doctors in the study – and presumably by medical practitioners who weren’t polled – are not backed up by science and place an unnecessary burden on a patient’s personal life. Hopefully, after reading the results of this study, doctors will take a more pro-active role and address the topic of sex with their heart attack patients with proper recommendations instead of leaving patients in a state of uncertainty. If a patient can handle moderate exercise, they can probably handle sex.

These were the first items on a nineteen-point World Health Organization (WHO) surgical safety checklist from an international research study to evaluate the impact of routinely using checklists in operating rooms. The research involved over 7,500 patients undergoing surgery in eight hospitals (Toronto, Canada; New Delhi, India; Amman, Jordan; Auckland, New Zealand; Manila, Philippines; Ifakara, Tanzania; London, England; and Seattle, WA) and was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2009.

Some of the items on the checklist were already part of standard care at many of the enrolled hospitals, such as the use of oxygen monitoring probes. Other items, such as ensuring that there was a contingency plan for major blood loss prior to each surgical procedure, were not part of routine surgical practice. The impact of checklist implementation was quite impressive, showing that this simple safety measure nearly halved the rate of death in surgical patients from 1.6% to 0.8%. The infection rate at the site of the surgical procedure also decreased from 6.2% in the months preceding the checklist introduction to a mere 3.4%.

Checklists as a Panacea?

The remarkable results of the 2009 study were met with widespread enthusiasm. This low-cost measure could be easily implemented in hospitals all over the world and could potentially lead to major improvements in patient outcomes. It also made intuitive sense that encouraging communication between surgical team members via checklists would reduce complications after surgery.

A few weeks after the study’s publication, the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) in the United Kingdom issued a patient safety alert, requiring National Health Service (NHS) organizations to use the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist for all patients undergoing surgical procedures. In 2010, Canada followed suit and also introduced regulations requiring the use of surgical safety checklists. However, the data for the efficacy of such lists had only been obtained in observational research studies conducted in selected hospitals. Would widespread mandatory implementation of such a system in “real world” community hospitals also lead to similar benefits?

A recently published study in the New England Journal of Medicine lead by Dr. David Urbach at the University of Toronto has now reviewed the surgery outcomes of hospitals in Ontario, Canada, comparing the rate of surgical complications during three-month periods before and after the implementation of the now mandatory checklists. Nearly all the hospitals reported that they were adhering to the checklist requirements and the vast majority used either a checklist developed by the Canadian Patient Safety Institute, which is even more comprehensive than the WHO checklist or other similar checklists. After analyzing the results of more than 200,000 procedures at 101 hospitals, Urbach and colleagues found no significant change in the rate of death after surgery after the introduction of the checklists (0.71% versus 0.65% – not statistically significant). Even the overall complication rates or the infection rates in the Ontario hospitals did not change significantly after surgical teams were required to complete the checklists.

Check the Checklist

The discrepancy in the results between the two studies is striking. How can one study demonstrate such a profound benefit of introducing checklists while a second study shows no significant impact at all? The differences between the two studies may hold some important clues. The 2009 study had a pre-checklist death rate of 1.6%, which is more than double the pre-checklist death rate in the more recent Ontario study. This may reflect the nature and complexity of the surgeries surveyed in the first study and also the socioeconomic differences. A substantial proportion of the patients in the international study were enrolled in low-income or middle-income countries. The introduction of a checklist may have been of much greater benefit to patients and hospitals that were already struggling with higher complication rates.

Furthermore, as the accompanying editorial by Dr. Lucian Leape in the New England Journal of Medicine points out, assessment of checklist implementation in the recent study by Urbach and colleagues was based on a retrospective analysis of self-reports by surgical teams and hospitals. Items may have been marked as “checked” in an effort to rush through the list and start the surgical procedures without the necessary diligence and time required to carefully go through every single item on the checklist. In the 2009 WHO study, on the other hand, surgical teams were aware of the fact that they were actively participating in a research study and the participating surgeons may have therefore been more motivated to meticulously implement all the steps on a checklist.

One of the key benefits of checklists is that they introduce a systematic and standardized approach to patient care and improve communication between team members. It is possible that the awareness of surgical teams in the Ontario hospitals in regards to patient safety and the need for systematic communication was already raised to higher level even before the introduction of the mandatory checklists so that this mandate may have had less of an impact.

Looking Forward

The study by Urbach and colleagues does not prove that safety checklists are without benefit. It highlights that there is little scientific data supporting the use of mandatory checklists. Since the study could not obtain any data on how well the checklists were implemented in each hospital, it is possible that checklists are more effective when team members buy into their value and do not just view it as another piece of mandatory and bureaucratic paperwork.

Instead of mandating checklists, authorities should consider the benefits of allowing surgical teams to develop their own measures that improve patient safety and team communication. The safety measures will likely contain some form of physical or verbal checklists. By encouraging surgical teams to get involved in the development process and tailor the checklists according to the needs of individual patients, surgical teams and hospitals, they may be far more motivated to truly implement them.

Optimizing such tailored checklists, understanding why some studies indicate benefits of checklists whereas others do not and re-evaluating the efficacy of checklists in the non-academic setting will all require a substantial amount of future research before one can draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of checklists. Regulatory agencies in Canada and the United Kingdom should reconsider their current mandates. Perhaps an even more important lesson to be learned is that health regulatory agencies should not rush to enforce new mandates based on limited scientific data.

Beware of what you share.Employers now routinely utilize internet search engines or social network searches to obtain information about job applicants. A survey of 2,184 hiring managers and human resource professionals conducted by the online employment website CareerBuilder.com revealed that 39% use social networking sites to research job candidates. Of the group who used social networks to evaluate job applicants, 43% found content on a social networking site that caused them to not hire a candidate, whereas only 19% found information that that has caused them to hire a candidate. The top reasons for rejecting a candidate based on information gleaned from social networking sites were provocative or inappropriate photos/information, including information about the job applicants’ history of substance abuse. This should not come as a surprise to job applicants in the US. After all, it is not uncommon for employers to invade the privacy of job applicants by conducting extensive background searches, ranging from the applicant’s employment history and credit rating to checking up on any history of lawsuits or run-ins with law enforcement agencies. Some employers also require drug testing of job applicants. The internet and social networking websites merely offer employers an additional array of tools to scrutinize their applicants. But how do we feel about digital sleuthing when it comes to relationship that is very different than the employer-applicant relationship – one which is characterized by profound trust, intimacy and respect, such as the relationship between healthcare providers and their patients?

The Hastings Center Report is a peer-reviewed academic bioethics journal which discusses the ethics of “Googling a Patient” in its most recent issue. It first describes a specific case of a twenty-six year old patient who sees a surgeon and requests a prophylactic mastectomy of both breasts. She says that she does not have breast cancer yet, but that her family is at very high risk for cancer. Her mother, sister, aunts, and a cousin have all had breast cancer; a teenage cousin had ovarian cancer at the age of nineteen; and that her brother was treated for esophageal cancer at the age of fifteen. She also says that she herself has suffered from a form of skin cancer (melanoma) at the age of twenty-five and that she wants to undergo the removal of her breasts without further workup because she wants to avoid developing breast cancer. She says that her prior mammogram had already shown abnormalities and she had been told by another surgeon that she needed the mastectomy.

Such prophylactic mastectomies, i.e. removal of both breasts, are indeed performed if young women are considered to be at very high risk for breast cancer based on their genetic profile and family history. The patient’s family history – her mother, sister and aunts being diagnosed with breast cancer – are indicative of a very high risk, but other aspects of the history such as her brother developing esophageal cancer at the age of fifteen are rather unusual. The surgeon confers with the patient’s primary care physician prior to performing the mastectomy and is puzzled by the fact that the primary care physician cannot confirm many of the claims made by the patient regarding her prior medical history or her family history. The physicians find no evidence of the patient ever having been diagnosed with a melanoma and they also cannot find documentation of the prior workup. The surgeon then asks a genetic counselor to meet with the patient and help resolve the discrepancies. During the evaluation process, the genetic counselor decides to ‘google’ the patient.

The genetic counselor finds two Facebook pages that are linked to the patient. One page appears to be a personal profile of the patient, stating that in addition to battling stage four melanoma (a very advanced stage of skin cancer with very low survival rates), she has recently been diagnosed with breast cancer. She also provides a link to a website soliciting donations to attend a summit for young cancer patients. The other Facebook page shows multiple pictures of the patient with a bald head, suggesting that she is undergoing chemotherapy, which is obviously not true according to what the genetic counselor and the surgeon have observed. Once this information is forwarded to the surgeon, he decides to cancel the planned surgery. It is not clear why the patient was intent on having the mastectomy and what she would gain from it, but the obtained information from the Facebook pages and the previously noted discrepancies are reason enough for the surgeon to rebuff the patient’s request for the surgery.

If you want to learn more about how ethics experts analyzed the situation and how common it is for psychologists enrolled in doctoral programs to use search engines or social networking sites in order to obtain more information about their patients/clients, please read the complete article at 3Quarksdaily.com.

I was about 12 years old when I found out that my grandfather was born on 12/12/12. If he were alive, he would be exactly 100 years old today. I found out about his birthday, when he came to stay with us in Munich for an eye surgery. He was a diabetic and had been experiencing deterioration in his vision. At that time, it was very difficult to find an eye surgeon in Pakistan who would be able to perform the surgery. My grandfather spoke many languages, such as Punjabi, Urdu, Persian, English, Arabic and some Sanskrit, but he could not speak German. His visit occurred during my school holidays, so I was designated to be his official translator for the doctor visits and his hospital stay.

On the afternoon before his surgery, we went to the hospital and I was filling out the registration forms, when I asked my grandfather about his birthday and he said 12/12/12. I was quite surprised to find out that he had such a wonderful combination of numbers, when the lady at the registration desk saw the date and asked me whether he was absolutely sure this was the correct date. I translated this for my grandfather and he smiled and said something along the lines of, “It is more or less the correct date. Nobody is exactly sure, but it is definitely very easy to remember”. I knew that I was supposed be a translator, but this required a bit more finesse than a straightforward translation. One cannot tell a German civil servant that a date is more or less correct. If we introduced uncertainty at this juncture, who knows what the consequences would be.

My grandfather wanted me to translate this, and I was again at a loss for words. Schnapszahl literally means Schnapsnumber and is a German expression for repeated digits, such as 33 or 555. The origin of the word probably lies in either the fact that a drunken person may have transient double vision or in a drinking game where one drinks Schnaps after reaching repeated digits when adding up numbers. I was not quite sure how to translate this into Urdu without having to go into the whole background of how German idioms often jokingly refer to alcohol.

I decided to translate her comment as “What a memorable date”, and my grandfather nodded.

We were then seen by a medical resident who also pointed out the unique birthday.

His comment was “Darauf sollten wir einen trinken!”, which is another German idiom and translates to „we should all have a drink to celebrate this”, but really just means “Hooray!” or “Great!”

My grandfather wanted to know what the doctor had said and I was again in a quandary. Should I give him accurate translation and explain that this is just another German idiom and is not intended as a cultural insult to a Pakistani Muslim? Or should I just skip the whole alcohol bit? Translation between languages is tough enough, but translating and showing cultural sensitivity was more than I could handle. My Urdu was not very good to begin with, and all I could come up with the rather silly Urdu translation “It is an opportunity for great joy”. My grandfather gave me a puzzled look, but did not ask any questions.

*****

On the day after my grand-father’s eye surgery, the ophthalmologist and the residents came by for morning rounds. They removed his eye-patch, inspected the eye and told me that everything looked great. He just needed a few more days of recovery and would soon be able to go home. After putting the gauze and eye-patch back on, the doctors moved on to the next patient.

Once the doctors had completed rounds, I made the acquaintance of the head nurse. She seemed to think that the eye ward was her military regiment and was running it like a drill-sergeant. She walked into every room and ordered all the patients to get out of bed and walk to the common area. Only lazy people stayed in bed, she said. The best way to recuperate was to move about.

I told her that I did not think my grandfather was ready to get up.

“Did any doctor forbid him to get up?”

“No, not really”, I replied.

“If he has two legs, he can walk to the common room. If not, we will provide a wheelchair.”

“He just had surgery yesterday and needs to rest”, I protested and pointed to my grandfather’s eye-patch.

“Yesterday was yesterday and today is today!” was the response from the drill-sergeant.

This statement did not seem very profound to me and I was waiting for a further explanation, but the drill-sergeant had already moved on, ordering the patients from the neighboring rooms to get up.

My grandfather and I did not have much of a choice, so we joined the procession of one-eyed men who looked like retired, frail pirates. They were slowly shuffling out of their rooms towards the common area.

The common area consisted of chairs and sofas as well as a couple of tables. I sat down in a corner with my grandfather, and we started talking. He told me stories from his life, including vivid descriptions of how he and his friends proudly defied the British colonialists. My grandfather recited poems from the Gulistan of the Persian poet Saadi for me in Persian and translated them into Urdu. He wanted to know about German history and what I was learning at school. He asked me if I knew any poems by Goethe, because the Indian poet Iqbal had been such a great admirer of Goethe’s poetry.

We talked for hours. Like most children, I did not realize how much I enjoyed the conversations. It was only years later when my grandfather passed away that I wished I had taken notes of my conversations with him. All I currently have are fragmented memories of our conversations, but I treasure these few fragments.

I then pulled out a tiny travel chess set that I had brought along, and we started playing chess. I knew that he had trouble distinguishing some of the pieces because of his eye surgery. I took advantage of his visual disability and won every game. During my conversations with my grandfather and our chess games, I noticed that some of the other men were staring at us. Perhaps they were irritated by having a child around. Maybe they did not like our continuous chatting or perhaps they just did not like us foreign-looking folks. I tried to ignore their stares, but they still made me quite uncomfortable.

On the next day, we went through the same procedure. Morning rounds, drill sergeant ordering everyone to the common area, conversations with my grandfather and our chess games. The stares of the other patients were now really bothering me. I was wondering whether I should walk up to one of the men and ask him whether they had a problem with me and my grandfather. Before I could muster the courage, one of the men got up and walked towards us. I was a bit worried, not knowing what the man was going to do or say to us.

“Can you ask your grandfather, if I can borrow you?”

“Borrow me?”, I asked, taken aback.

“He gets to tell you all these stories and play chess with you for hours and hours, and I also want to have someone to talk to.”

Once he had said that, another patient who was silently observing us chimed in and said that he would like to know if he could “borrow” me for a game of chess. I felt really stupid. The other patients who had been staring at me and my grandfather were not at all racist or angry towards us, they were simply envious of the fact that my grandfather had someone who would listen to him.

I tried to translate this for my grandfather, but I did not know how to translate “borrow”. My grandfather smiled and understood immediately what the men wanted, and told me that I should talk to as many of the patients as possible. He told me that the opportunity to listen to others was a mutual blessing, both for the narrator as well as the listener.

On that day and the next few days that my grandfather spent in the hospital, I spoke to many of the men and listened to their stories about their lives, their health, their work and even stories about World War 2 and life in post-war Germany. I also remember how I agreed to play chess, but when I pulled out my puny little travel chess set, my opponent laughed and brought a huge chess set from a cupboard in the common area. He beat me and so did my grandfather who then also played chess with me on this giant-size chess board which obliterated the visual advantage that my travel set had offered.

***********

Since that time I spent with my grandfather and the other patients on the eye ward, I have associated medicine with narration. All humans want to be narrators, but many have difficulties finding listeners. Illness is often a time of vulnerability and loneliness. Narrating stories during this time of vulnerability is a way to connect to fellow human beings, which helps overcome the loneliness. The listeners can be family members, friends or even strangers. Unfortunately, many people who are ill do not have access to family members or friends who are willing to listen. This is the reason why healthcare professionals such as nurses or physicians can serve a very important role. We listen to patients so that we can obtain clues about their health, searching for symptoms that can lead to a diagnosis. However, sometimes the process of listening itself can be therapeutic in the sense that it provides comfort to the patient.

Even though I mostly work as a cell biologist, I still devote some time to the practice of medicine. What I like about being a physician is the opportunity to listen to patients or their family members. I prescribe all the necessary medications and tests according to the cardiology guidelines, but I have noticed that my listening to the patients and giving them an opportunity to narrate their story provides an immediate relief.

It is an indeed an “an opportunity for great joy”, when the patient experiences the joy of having an audience and the healthcare provider experiences the joy of connecting with the patient. I have often wondered whether there is any good surrogate for listening to the patient. Medicine is moving towards reducing face-to-face time between healthcare providers and patients in order to cut costs or maximize profits. The telemedicine approach in which patients are assessed by physicians who are in other geographic locations is gaining ground. Patients now often fill out checklists about their history instead of narrating it to the physicians or nurses. All of these developments are reducing the opportunity for the narrator-listener interaction between patients and healthcare providers. However, social networks, blogs and online discussion groups may provide patients the opportunities to narrate their stories (those directly related to their health as well as other stories) and find an audience. I personally prefer the old-fashioned style of narration. The listener can give instant feedback and the facial expressions and subtle nuances can help reassure the narrator. The key is to respect the narrative process in medicine and to help the patients find ways to narrate their stories in a manner that they are comfortable with.